THE  DEMOCRATIC  RECORD. 

DARE  THE  NATION  TRUST  SUCH  A  PARTY? 


When  a  political  party  goes  before  the 
people  with  a  claim  for  their  suffrage  and 
the  control  of  their  Government  and  public 
affairs,  the  first  and  most  natural  impulse  of 
the  public  mind  is  to  know  something  of  the 
past  public  record  of  the  claimants.  In  or-  I 
der  to  aid  in  this  very  proper  and  necessary  i 
investigation  the  following  facts  and  figures 
have  been  drawn  from  the  official  records  ' 
and  published.  They  are  presented  without 
note  or  comment.  The  reader  will  draw  his 
own  conclusions,  and  at  his  leisure  answer 
from  his  own  convictions  the  question  :  Dare 
the  nation  trust  such  a  party  f 

JACKSON  AND  HIS  TIMES — “TOTHE  VICTORS. '’ETC. 

On  March 4, 1829,  Andrew  Jackson,  pledged 
to  retrenchment,  economy,  and  reform,  was  I 
inaugurated  President  of  the  United  States. 

\  Proclaiming  the  maxim  that  “to  the  victors 
belong  the  spoils,”  .Jackson  let  slip  the 
“Furies  of  the  Guillotine”  in  a  wholesale 
proscription  of  the  old  and  tried  officials  of 
former  Administrations  John  Q.  Adams, 
in  the  preceding  four  years,  had  made  but  i 
twelve  changes — all  for  cause.  In  the  pre¬ 
ceding  forty  years,  all  his  predecessors  to¬ 
gether  had  made  only  one  hundred  and 
thirty-two  changes — of  these  Jefferson  had 
removed  sixty-two ;  but  Jackson,  in  the 
genuine  spirit  of  a  Democratic  reformer,  in 
one  year  removed,  it  was  estimated,  one  ] 
thousand  five  hundred  officials — in  one  year 
nearly  twelve  times  as  many  as  by  all  his 
predecessors  from  the  beginning  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment.  The  officers  removed  were  expe¬ 
rienced,  capable,  and  trusty.  The  charac¬ 
ter  of  those  who  filled  their  places — “Slamrn, 
Bang  &  Co.” — is  attested  by  the  reform  which 
followed. 

! 

THE  GREAT  PUBLIC  AND  INDIAN  LAND  GRABS. 

A  rage  for  speculation  in  the  public  lands  ! 
distinguished  the  period.  General  Lewis  I 
Cas3,  Secretary  of  War,  who  pocketed  illegal-  . 
ly,  as  extra  allowances,  the  sum  of  $68,000,  . 
united  with  Martin  Van  Buren,  Secretary  of 
State,  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Attorney  General, 
and  others,  in  a  land  Credit  Mobilier  for 
speculatiou  in  public  lands — for  speculation 
in  sales  by  the  Government,  of  which  they 
were  members.  Amos  Kendall,  the  Fourth 
Auditor,  and  subsequently  Postmaster  Gen¬ 
eral,  in  like  manner  united  with  a  Boston 
land  company,  for  a  fee  of  $50,000,  in  the 
wholesale  robbery  of  certain  Indians  in  Mis¬ 


sissippi  of  their  lands — all  swindling  en¬ 
terprises  in  contemptuous  violation  of  the 
law,  of  which  they  were  the  administrators. 
(IT.  R.  194  second  session  Twenty-fourth 
Congress. 

CHE  GALPHIN  SWINDLE. 

in  1834  John  Forsyth,  of  Georgia,  suc¬ 
ceeded  Lewis  McLane,  of  Delaware,  as  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State,  in  Jackson’s  Cabinet.  In 
1850  the  payment  of  the  notorious  “Gal- 
phin  swindle”  scandalized  the  nation.  By 
the  Democracy  it  was  denounced  as  “infa¬ 
mous” — as  “without  a  precedent” — as  “a 
clear  and  unmitigated  Swindle  I”  Theii 
memories  were  bad.  In  1837,  before  the 
Wise  committee,  John  Ross,  the  Cheroke^ 
chief,  testified  that  in  1835,  in  th  •. 
Cherokee  treaty  of  that  year,  an  article 
covering  the  “Galphin”  was  inserted  direct¬ 
ly  through  the  influence  of  “Mr.  Forsyth. 
Secretary  of  State;”  that  it  was  urged,  in 
the  negotiations  of  the  treaty,  that  M, 
Forsyth  had  great  influence  with  the  Pres 
dent ;  that  “Mr.  Forsyth  could  and  won!  < 
induce  the  President  to  grant  a  sum  suffi¬ 
cient  to  cover  the  Galphin  additional  to  the 
sum  stipulated  in  the  treaty  if  the  Cherm 
kees  would  sanction  a  treaty  upon  such 
terms.”  The  article  was  consequently  in¬ 
serted.  Mr.  Forsyth  admitted  that  he  “ad¬ 
vised”  its  insertion,  as  also  his  personal  in¬ 
terest  in  the  payment  of  both  principal  an-1 
interest.  He  had  applied  to  both  Secretaries 
of  War,  Eaton  and  Cass;  as  Secretary  of 
State  had  certified  the  papers  from  the  De¬ 
partment  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 
General  Cass  had  told  him  vthat  the  claim, 
was  just  ;  and  when  the  treaty  was  pend¬ 
ing  before  the  Senate  had  “conversed” 
with  Senators  urging  its  ratification  ;  but 
pleads  that,  to  them,  his  “appeals”  were 
“founded  solely  on  the  justice  of  the 
claim” — ‘the  hardship  of  the  condition  of 
the  claimants.” 

Hence,  lobbied  in  1835  by  Forsyth,  Jack- 
son’s  Secretary  of  State,  approved  by  Gen¬ 
eral  Cass,  his  Secretary  of  War,  and  justi¬ 
fied  in  1837  by  the  Democratic  majority  of 
the  Wise  committee,  engineered  through 
Congress,  in  i  849,  by  another  distinguished 
Democratic  reformer,  Mr,  Burt,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  the  principal  paid  by  James 
K.  Polk,  the  question  of  interest  was 
only  reserved  and  its  liquidation  by  Polk 
only  defeated  for  want  of  time. 


2 


TU  POST  OFFICE  DEPARTMENT  “ INSOLVENT  ” 
UNDER  DEMOCRATIC  RULE. 

In  1834,  after  a  hard  battle,  (from  1830,) 
Senators  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  and  John 
M.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  forced  an  inquiry 
by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Post  Offices  and 
Post  Roads  into  the  condition  of  the  Post 
Office  Department.  It  found  the  Department 
* ‘insolvent,”  a  helpless  prey  to  maladmin¬ 
istration,  corruption,  robbery,  and  fraud. 
In  the  preceding  administration,  under 
John  Q,.  Adams,  the  Department  had  been 
not  only  self-sustaining,  but  had  contribu¬ 
ted  annually  $1,103,063  to  the  revenues  of 
the  nation.  But  now,  in  a  few  brief  years, 
under  Democratic  reform,  it  was  bankrupt, 
a  burden  upon  the  Treasury.  (S.  R.  422, 
first  session  Twenty-third  Congress.) 

Mr.  Felix  Grundy,  of  Tennessee,  the  Dem¬ 
ocratic  chairman  of  the  committee,  was  op¬ 
posed  to  the  investigation. 

Postmaster  General  Barry  refused  to  recog¬ 
nize  its  authority.  H_  declared  that  he  was 
responsible,  not  to  the  Senate,  but  to  the 
President,  and  through  him  to  the  peo¬ 
ple.  He  refused  to  furnish  the  committee 
the  information  it  requested,  and  it  was 
forced  to  prosecute  its  labors  under  the 
greatest  difficulties,  among  mutilated  rec¬ 
ords  and  fabricated  accounts  in  the  great¬ 
est  confusion.  But  even  under  such  disad¬ 
vantages  it  developed  a  condition  of  affairs 
utterly  without  a  parallel  in  all  our  previous 
history. 

THE  “EXTRA-ALLOWANCE”  FRAUDS  IN  DEMO¬ 
CRATIC  TIMES. 

One  of  the  greatest  abuses  of  the  Depart¬ 
ment  was  in  its  extra  allowances,  aggregat¬ 
ing  hundreds  of  thousands  annually,  fre¬ 
quently  given  without  an  increase  of  duty  or 
service,  without  the  authority  of  law,  and  in 
many  cases  where  there  was  an  increase  of 
service,  “unreasonable,  extravagant,  and 
out  of  all  proportion  with  such  increase.” 
These  extra  allowances  actually  exhausted  the 
whole  postal  revenues  of  States,  and  were  grant¬ 
ed  practically  as  pensions  to  party  favorites. 

DEMOCRATIC  SPECIAL-SERVICE  PLUMS. 

The  ‘  ‘  incidental  expenses  ’  ’  of  the  Depart¬ 
ment — not  its  “contingent  expenses,”  which 
were  separate,  distinct,  and  additional,  but 
its  11  secret-service  fund,”  in  a  single  year, 
(1829,)  increased  to  $56,471,  “exceeding 
that  of  any  former  year,”  but  in  1832, 
during  the  Presidential  election,  it  suddenly 
swelled  to  $88,000  !  It  was  principally  the 
newspaper  fund.  After  deducting  the  sup¬ 
port  of  traveling  partisan  emissaries,  under 
the  title  of  “postal  agents,”  it  was  the  fund 
out  of  which  Jke  numerous  party  presses 
were  permitted  to  richly  share  the  plunder. 
So  the  Greenes,  of  the  Boston  Statesman, 
the  elder  Greene  (Nathaniel)  being  post¬ 
master  at  Boston,  and  certifying  the  accounts 
which  were  for  “printed  blanks,  twine,”  etc. 
So  the  Hills,  of  the  New  Hampshire  Patriot , 


the  Shadrach  Penns,  of  the  Louisville  Public 
Advertiser,  the  Albany  Argus,  New  York 
Courier  and  Enquirer ,  the  Washington  Globe, 
the  national  organ,  etc.  The  prices  paid  to 
F.  P.  Blair  of  the  Globe  were  “enormous.” 
Of  the  $22,957.08  of  “incidental  expenses” 
during  the  Presidential  election  of  1832, 
$13,673.31  were  paid  to  the  editors  of  news¬ 
papers.  Of  that  Blair  received  $8,386.50  1 
During  the  election  he  received  from  this 
secret  fund  alone  about  $116  daily  for  every 
day  his  paper  was  issued.  The  details  are 
disgusting.  Maladministration,  corruption, 
and  fraud  run  riot.  The  aggregate  excess 
of  expenditures  in  four  years,  as  compared 
with  the  preceding  four  years,  under  Adams, 
was  “$3,336,859!”  The  amount  of  funds 
actually  “sunk”  by  the  Department  since 
1829  was  “$1,032,933;”  and  the  aggregate 
of  its  “ indebtedness ”  April  11,  1834,  was 
“$1,123,600  !”  To  avoid  immediate  exposure 
by  the  collapse  and  closing  of  his  Depart¬ 
ment,  the  Postmaster  General  was  forced, 
besides  his  loans  from  contractors,  to  unlaw¬ 
fully  contract  loans,  bearing  interest,  from 
the  banks.  There  was  no  evading  the  judg¬ 
ment.  (S.  R.  422,  first  session  Twenty-third 
Congress.)  At  the  next  session  the  report  of 
the  Democratic  Committee  of  the  House  was 
even  more  damaging  than  the  Senate’s. 
Hence,  under  the  unanimous  verdict  of  the 
Senate,  Postmaster  General  Barry  was  com¬ 
pelled  to  resign - to  accept  promotion  to  the 

mission  to  Spain,  with  its  lucrative  outfits  and  infits. 
THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  “  PET  BANK”  ROB¬ 
BERIES. 

About  this  time  the  affairs  of  the  old  Bank 
of  the  United  States  and  its  branches  began 
to  wane.  By  law  the  bank  was  the  deposi¬ 
tory  of  the  Government  revenues,  and  in 
consequence  was  the  Treasury  of  the  nation. 
In  1834,  by  a  daring  act  of  usurpation,  Pres¬ 
ident  Jackson  removed  the  deposits.  He 
transferred  them  to  certain  “pet”  State 
banks  of  the  Democratic  reformers,  who 
claimed  the  revenues  of  the  nation  as  the 
“spoils”  of  “The  Party  !”  The  destruction 
of  the  Bank  and  subsequent  explosion  of  the 
“Pet  Banks”  involved  the  loss  of  millions, 
the  ‘destruction  and  ruin  of  thousands  of  the 
business  men  and  the  business  of  the  coun¬ 
try — of  $500,000,000  of  private  capital — and 
the  consequent  suffering  and  want  of  tens  of 
thousands  of  all  ranks  and  classes  through¬ 
out  the  Union.  The  Democratic  reformers 
nevertheless  applauded.  They  laughed  at 
the  misery  and  ruin  they  had  caused,  belit¬ 
tled  their  magnitude,  and  maintained  and 
justified  the  removal  in  all  its  bearings. 

INVESTIGATIONS  AND  EXPOSURES. 

In  1837  the  Garland  committee  published 
the  “Wool-clip”  correspondence  between 
Secretary  Woodbury  and  the  deposit  banks, 
exposed  the  criminal  partisan  favoritism  of 
the  Treasury  in  the  distribution  and  man¬ 
agement  of  the  deposits  or  revenues  of  the 


3  if,  6 

DZ% 


8 


nation  as  the  “spoils”  of  “The  Party,”  and 
prepared  the  country  for  the  disastrous  ex¬ 
plosion  of  the  “Pet  Banks”  which  followed. 
(H.  R.  193,  second  session  Twenty-fourth 
Congress.) 

The  Wise  committee  unearthed  “Forsyth’s 
Nankeen;”  exposed  the  complicity  of  the 
high-toned  Georgian  Secretary  of  State  in 
the  “infamous  Galphin  swindle;”  exposed 
Postmaster  General  Kendall’s  complicity,  with 
“a  $50,000  fee,”  in  the  Boston  scheme  for  the 
wholesale  robbery  of  the  Mississippi  Indians 
of  their  lands ;  and  developed  Secretary 
Cass’s  corrupt  favoritism  in  the  dispensation 
of  his  patronage.  (H.  R.  194,  second  session 
Twenty-fourth  Congress.) 

FORGERY,  ABSENTEEISM,  EMBEZZLEMENT,  AN» 
EXTORTION. 

One|T.  B.  Waterman  was  &  protege — a  copy¬ 
ing  clerk  in  the  Pension  Office,  appointed  by 
the  General.  Waterman  forged  the  initials 
of  Secretary  Cass  to  an  account;  Waterman 
confessed  the  forgery,  and  the  General  paid 
the  account.  (II.  R.  194,  second  session 
Twenty-fourth  Congress.) 

D.  Azro  A.  Buck  was  a  model  reformer.  He 
was  appointed  a  clerk  by  Secretary  Cass, 
July  8,  1835.  About  the  same  time  Buck 
was  also  elected  a  member  of  the  Vermont 
Legislature.  Hence  he  did  not  report  at  the 
War  Department  for  duty  until  December. 
In  January,  1836,  General  Cass  paid  him  for 
five  months’  service,  when  Buck  had  ren¬ 
dered  but  one.  (H.  R.  194,  second  session 
Twenty-fourth  Congress.) 

Lieutenant  Thomas  Johnson,  a  disbursing 
officer,  lost,  in  gambling,  two  United  States 
drafts  for  $1,000  and  $1,500,  respectively. 
These  drafts  were  protested  by  a  deposit 
bank — the  Union  Bank  of  Louisiana,  at  New 
Orleans — and  an  appeal  for  their  payment 
was  made  to  the  War  Department.  The  facts 
were  all  known.  The  Hon.  Ambrose  H.  Se¬ 
vier,  of  Arkansas,  and  the  Hon.  Richard  M. 
Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  (model  Democratic 
reformers,)  interested  themselves  in  their 
payment,  the  pious  Attorney  General  (B.  F. 
Butler)  uttered  a  favorable  opinion,  and  Sec¬ 
retary  Cass  drew  a  warrant  for  their  payment 
even  after  Woodbury  had  declined.  (H.  R. 
194,  second  session  Twenty-fourth  Congress.) 

At  the  same  time  Garret  D.  Wall,  then 
United  States  District  Attorney  at  Perth  Am¬ 
boy,  N.  J.,  and  subsequently  United  States 
Senator  from  New  Jersey,  a  distinguished 
Democratic  reformer,  assessed  his  modest 
fees  for  his  influence  with  the  Administra¬ 
tion.  (H.  R.  194,  second  session  Twenty- 
fourth  Congress.) 

In  1839  resistance  to  investigation  was  no 
longer  possible.  “No  more  packed  commit¬ 
tees,”  was  the  fiat  of  the  nation — no  more 
committee*  appointed  by  James  K.  Polk  ;  and 
accordingly  the  House,  by  ballot,  elected  the 
celebrated  Harlan  committee. 

Now,  the  proofs  were  overwhelming. 


THE  SWARTWOUT  SWINDLES. 

In  April,  1829,  Samuel  Swartwout  was  ap¬ 
pointed  by  President  Jackson  collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York.  He  was  notoriously  im¬ 
pecunious,  a  reckless  gambler  in  stocks, 
largely  in  debt,  always  in  want  of  money, 
and  wholly  irresponsible  financially.  Hig 
default  began  within  a  year  from  the  date  of 
his  appointment,  and  continued  during  eight 
years — for  years  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
authorities  at  Washington— -for  years  {from 
1834  to  1837)  without  the  bonds  required  by  law 
to  the  Government  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  mil¬ 
lions  in  his  hands.  (H.  R.  313,  third  session 
Twenty- fifth  Congress.) 

His  default  was  for  $1,225,705.69.  The 
causes  of  his  default,  as  the  Harlan  commit¬ 
tee  declare,  were  his  irresponsibility  in  pecu¬ 
niary  character  when  appointed  ;  the  culpa¬ 
ble  disregard  of  law  and  neglect  of  official 
duty  by  the  naval  officer  at  New  York,  by 
the  First  Auditor  and  First  Comptroller  of 
the  Treasury  ;  the  discontinuance  of  the  use 
of  banks  of  deposit ;  the  consequent  accumu¬ 
lation  of  vast  sums  in  the  hands  of  a  stock 
gambler  so  improvident  and  reckless  as 
Swartwout ;  and  the  negligence  and  failure 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  discharge 
his  duty  as  head  of  the  Treasury.  In  a  word, 
by  the  abandonment  at  New  York  and  Wash¬ 
ington  of  all  the  checks  thrown  by  law  around 
the  collection  of  the  revenue.  (H.  R.  313, 
third  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress.) 

Swartwout  was  not  removed.  His  com¬ 
mission  expired  March  28,  1838,  and,  being 
apprized  in  time,  he,  on  the  16th  of  August, 
fled  to  England  with  his  plunder,  followed 
within  a  fortnight  by  William  M.  Price,  (the 
district  attorney  for  the  southern  district  of 
New  York,)  a  confederate  in  crime,  and,  like 
Swartwout,  a  defaulter  in  the  sum  of  $72,- 
124.06.  The  default  of  General  C.  Gratiot, 
Chief  Engineer  United  States  army,  was  for 
$50,000. 

CORRUPTION  AND  FRAUD  REION  8UFBEME. 

In  every  bureau  of  the  New  York  customs 
maladministration,  corruption,  and  fraud 
reigned  supreme,  and  here,  with  the  origin 
of  Democratic  reform,  began  the  “tyranny” 
of  assessments  for  party  purposes,  levied  for 
national  and  local  elections  upon  the  cus¬ 
toms  officers  and  in  the  navy-yard  at  New 
York,  as  throughout  the  country  and  in  the 
executive  departments  at  Washington. 

The  maladministration  and  corruption  in 
the  collection  of  the  revenue  from  the  sales 
or  the  public  lands  were  as  flagitious  as  in 
the  customs.  Out  of  sixty-odd  receivers  of 
public  moneys  fifty  defaulted.  A  few  in¬ 
stances  will  illustrate  the  whole  : 

A  RECEIVER’S  OFFICE  MADE  A  BROKERS’  DEN. 

John  Spencer  was  receiver  at  Fort  Wayne, 
Ind.  In  May,  1836,  the  Secretary  complain¬ 
ed  to  Spencer  that  his  accounts  were  in  ar¬ 
rears,  and  appointed  Nat.  West,  jr.,  of  In¬ 
dianapolis,  as  examiner,  to  investigate  the 


4 


office  at  Fort  Wayne.  Mr.  West  reports 
the  office  a  broker’s  den  for  speculation  and 
shaving.  Spencer  was  about  to  be  removed. 
Hon.  Wm.  Hendricks  rushes  to  the  rescue, 
and  urges  that  Colonel  Spencer  is  “  an  hon¬ 
est  and  honorable  man;”  that  his  removal 
“would,  to  some  extent,  produce  excite¬ 
ment,”  “for  he  has  many  warm  and  influen¬ 
tial  friends,  both  at  Fort  Wayne  and  in  Dear¬ 
born  county.  Better  let  it  be.”  Mr.  Woodbury  j 
concluded  to  “  let  it  be.”  To  Mr.  Hendricks 
he  writes  :  “I  am  happy  to  inform  you  that 
Mr.  Spencer’s  explanations  have  been  such 
that  he  will  probably  continue  in  office.” 
Mr.  Spencer’s  explanations  wore :  “  My  Dem¬ 
ocratic  friends  think  I  ought  not  to  leave  un¬ 
til  after  we  hold  our  election  for  President,” 
“which  I  have  concluded  to  wait.”  (H.  R. 
313,  third  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress.) 

WiBey  P.  Harris  was  receiver  at  Colum¬ 
bus,  Miss.  “General  Harris”  was  indorsed 
by  his  Democratic  representative  in  Congress 
as  “  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  Democracy,” 
as  of  “diffused  and  deserved  popularity,” 
and  as  “  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  distin¬ 
guished  friends  of  the  [Jackson’s]  Adminis¬ 
tration  in  Mississippi.”  In  March,  1834, 
Secretary  Roger  B.  Taney  complained  of  his 
conduct,  and  after  fifteen  warnings,  extend¬ 
ing  through  two  years,  from  Secretary  Wood¬ 
bury,  “General  Harris”  was  permitted  to 
resign,  and  to  nominate  and  secure  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  his  successor,  “  Colonel  Gordon 
D.  Boyd,  of  Attala  county.”  Whereupon 
the  Secretary  quietly  entered  on  the  books 
of  the  Treasury :  “Balance  due  from  Mr. 
Harris,  $109,178.08.”  (H.  R.  313,  third  ses¬ 

sion  Twenty-fifth  Congress.) 

FIFTY  “HONEST  ”  DEMOCRATIC  OFFICIALS. 

Colonel  Boyd  early  fell  into  the  footsteps 
cf  his  illustrious  predecessor.  In  June, 
1837,  Mr.  Garesche  reports  the  Colonel  as  a 
defaulter  to  the  amount  of  $50,000,  but  adds: 
“All  concede  that  his  intemperance  has  been 
his  greatest  crime.”  “The  man  seems  really 
penitent,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think,  in  com¬ 
mon  with  his  friends,  that  he  is  honest,  and 
has  been  led  away  by  the  example  of  his  pre¬ 
decessor  and  a  certain  looseness  in  the  code 
of  morality  which  here  does  not  move  in  so 
limited  a  circle  as  it  does  with  us  at  home. 
Another  receiver  would  probably  follow  in  the  foot¬ 
steps  of  the  two.  You  will  not,  therefore,  be 
surprised  if  I  recommend  his  being  retain¬ 
ed.”  So  it  was  decreed.  In  October,  Boyd 
was  allowed  to  resign,  and  the  Secretary  en¬ 
tered  against  his  name  :  “  Indebted  $50,000, 
as  per  last  statement.”  And  so  with  the  re¬ 
mainder — Linn,  Lewis,  Alsbury,  Dickson, 
Skinner,  Hays,  Simpson — fifty  in  all  ;  mak¬ 
ing  an  aggregate  default  of  $825,678.28.  (H. 
R.  313,  third  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress.) 

JBS8R  HOYT’S  SYSTEMATIC  BOBBERIES. 

In  1841-’42  the  Poindexter  commission 
investigated  the  maladministration  of  Swart- 
wont’s  successor,  Jesse  Hoyt,  the  special  pro- 


teye  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  who  was  appoint¬ 
ed  in  March,  1838.  At  the  date  of  his  ap¬ 
pointment,  Hoyt,  like  Swartwout  and  Price, 
was  notoriously  impecunious,  irresponsible 
financially,  largely  in  debt,  and  a  reckless 
speculator  in  stocks.  His  maladministration 
and  systematic  robberies  of  the  Government 
and  the  importers  amounted  to  piracy.  Even 
in  the  incidental  expenses  of  the  customs 
— in  the  matter  of  stationery,  printing, 
and  the  like — the  pillage  amounted  to  tens 
of  thousands  annually.  No  advertisement 
for  the  lowest  bidder,  no  contract  at  stipu¬ 
lated  prices-  for  their  supply,  but  ordered  ex¬ 
travagantly  and  in  the  loosest  manner,  with 
no  evidence  required  of  the  delivery  of  the 
article,  they  were  paid  for,  on  demand,  at 
prices  ranging  from  100  to  200  per  cent, 
greater  than  the  current  New  York  rates. 
(H.  R.  669,  second  session  Twenty-seventh 
Congress.) 

Geo.  A.  Wasson,  “  a  sort  of  factotum”  for 
Hoyt,  had  a  monopoly  of  the  cartage  at  the 
public  stores  —  two  privileged  carts,  for 
the  use  and  labor  of  which,  in  three  years, 
Hoyt  paid  him  $94,430.92.  In  addition  to 
his  salary  as  storekeeper,  Hoyt  paid  Wasson 
unlawfully,  as  deputy  collector,  $1,500  per 
annum.  (H.  R.  669,  second  session  Twen¬ 
ty-seventh  Congress.) 

In  the  seizure  of  goods  under  Hoyt’s  ra¬ 
pacious  system  of  reappraisement,  Wasson 
was  one  of  a  “triumvirate” — Wasson, 
Cairns,  and  Ives — of  Hoyt’s  standing  wit* 
nesses  in  the  courts.  This  trained  trio  were 
allowed  to  share  the  plunder.  In  a  single 
instance  in  1840  Hoyt  paid  Wasson,  without 
vouchers,  $1,767.33  over  and  above  the  legal 
fees,  for  attendance  on  three  trials,  between 
May  and  October.  Wasson  was  allowed  to 
employ,  for  his  private  benefit,  laborers 
hired  and  paid  by  the  Government.  He  was 
a  privileged  purchaser,  in  his  own  name  and 
in  the  names  of  others,  at  the  sales  of  goods 
remaining  nine  months  unclaimed  in  the 
public  stores  ;  allowed  to  plunder  the  public 
stores  of  goods  in  large  quantities  ;  to  rob 
the  custom-house  of  coal  for  his  private  use ; 
in  a  word,  to  indulge  in  “  a  multitude  of  ille¬ 
gal  practices  and  petty  frauds”  in  addition 
to  the  goods,  the  luxuries,  the  salaries,  he 
absorbed  from  outside  parties  interested  in 
the  ruin  of  importers.  (H.  R.  669,  second 
session  Twenty-seventh  Congress.) 

Cairns  and  Ives,  in  like  manner,  equally 
shared  in  the  plunder. 

In  January,  1840,  a  fire  destroyed  the 
Front-street  stores.  The  goods  saved  were 
removed  by  the  custom-house  attaches — 
placed  in  an  open  lot — all  entrance  to  which 
was  refused  to  the  importers  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  identifying  and  recovering  their 
property  ;  but  the  goods,  practically  seized, 
were  made  up  into  piles  or  lots  in  which 
the  vilest  frauds  were  practiced  to  deceive 
purchasers — struck  off  at  nominal  sums 


5 


to  privileged  parties  in  collusion  with  the 
officials,  and  the  proceeds,  after  deduct¬ 
ing  fees,  &c.,  pocketed  by  the  collector. 
Thus  the  owners  were  robbed  of  goods  ag¬ 
gregating  in  value  $1,000,000,  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  $400,000  as  duties,  and  Hoyt  pock¬ 
eted  about  $30,000  which  should  have  been 
deposited  in  the  Treasury  for  the  benefit  of 
the  owners. 


cured  assignments  to  the  amount  of  $1,000, 000 
for  this  season,  (1841,)  and  even  more,  if  I 
could  have  assured  the  consignees  that  they 
would  not  be  seized  after  they  had  passed  the 
custom-house,  and  the  duties  thereon  had 
been  paid.”  (H.  R.  669,  second  session 
Twenty-seventh  Congress.)  As  it  was,  they 
dared  not  risk  their  goods  within  Hoyt’s 
piratical  jurisdiction. 


Hoyt  also  rented  unlawfully  five  stores 
for  the  safe-keeping  of  goods  entered  at 
the  custom-house.  These  stores  yielded 
him  a  profit,  per  annum,  of  $10,000,  at  a 
cost  to  the  Government  of  $30,000 ;  or,  in 
three  years,  in  violation  of  law,  but  with 
the  sanction  of  Secretary  Woodbury,  Hoyt, 
through  these  stores,  pocketed  $30,000,  at  a 
cost  to  the  nation  of  $90,000!  (H.  R.  669, 

second  session  Twenty-seventh  Congress.) 


These  are  but  characteristic  instances  in 
illustration  of  Hoyt’s  maladministration. 
Their  magnitude  and  extent  were  astound¬ 
ing.  His  criminal  rapacity  attained  its 
shocking  results  in  his  system  of  fraudulent 
reappraisement.  Goods  regularly  invoiced, 
and  upon  which  all  demands  at  the  custom¬ 
house  had  been  paid  after  examination  and 
appraisement  by  the  lawful  appraisers  of 
the  customs,  were  followed  by  Wasson, 
Cairns,  and  Ives  to  Baltimore,  Philadelphia, 
and  other  cities,  again  examined,  reapprais¬ 
ed,  condemned,  seized,  and  held  for  trial. 
At  the  trials  the  trained  “triumvirate” 
were  the  standing  witnesses.  Nevertheless, 
“in  nearly  all  these  cases” — “thirty-two 
out  of  thirty-three” — tried  in  the  United 
States  district  court  for  the  southern  district 
of  New  York,  “the  verdicts  of  the  juries 
were  in  favor”  of  the  importers.  A  like  re¬ 
sult  attended  the  suits  elsewhere.  But  in 
every  case,  whether  favorable  to  the  im¬ 
porter  or  not,  the  ^result  to  him  was  equally 
disastrous — absolute  ruin  to  many  through 
the  unlawful  seizure,  supported  bv  the 
systematic  perjury  of  a  trio  trained  in 
the  service  of  Hoyt,  with  the  sanction 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  (H.  R. 
S69,  second  session  Twenty-seventh  Con¬ 
gress.) 

1  single  instance  will  illustrate  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  similar  cases.  Mr.  Bottomly  swears 
in  1841:  “  Mr.  Hoyt  has  taken  from  me  the 
principal  part  of  all  the  property  I  possess¬ 
ed.”  “  In  less  than  two  years”  Hoyt’s  ra¬ 
pacity  had  mulcted  Mr.  B.  in  costs  aggre¬ 
gating  $200,000.  “  One-third”  of  all  the 

English  importers  were  ruined.  Their  prop¬ 
erty,  (upon  the  sales  of  which  they  depended 
to  meet  their  liabilities  to  the  foreign  manu¬ 
facturer.)  seized  and  locked  up  for  an  indefi¬ 
nite  period,  their  failure  was  the  inevitable 
result;  and  their  bankruptcy  carried  with  it 
the  ruin  of  “a  large  number  of  English 
manufacturers.”  Mr.  Bottomly  had  recently 
been  in  England,  where  goods  were  unusu¬ 
ally  cheap,  and  swears  :  “I  could  have  pro¬ 


! 


j 


HOTT,  BUTLER,  AND  THE  “TRIUMVIRATE.” 

In  all  this  rapacious  villainy,  systemati¬ 
cally  pursued  under  the  forms  of  law,  under 
the  grandest  protestations  of  “patriotism” 
and  “reform,”  again  and  again  repeated, 
Ex- Attorney  General  Benjamin  F.  Butler, 
President  Van  Buren’s  old  law-partner,  the 
pious  and  prayerful  president  of  the  defunct 
bogus  “Washington  and  Warren  Bank”  of 
Sandy  Hill,  and  subsequently  Price’s  succes¬ 
sor  as  United  States  district  attorney  for  the 
southern  district  of  New  York,  was  Hoyt’s 
adviser  and  active  coadj  ator.  Through  it  all 
the  Government  bore  all  the  enormous  ex¬ 
penses.  Hoyt,  Butler,  and  the  “trium¬ 
virate” —  Wasson,  Cairns,  and  Ives  —  ab¬ 
sorbed  all  the  profits.  Besides  the  immense 
sums  accruing  as  fees  in  all  cases  of  seizure 
under  reappraisement,  Hoyt’s  practice  of  re¬ 
taining  in  his  own  hands,  with  the  sanction 
of  Secretary  Woodbury,  the  amount  of  duties 
in  such  cases  enabled  him  for  indefinite  pe¬ 
riods  oi  time — for  years — to  use  the  vast 
sums  thus  held  for  his  private  profit  in 
loans  to  bank3  and  brokers  and  in  specula¬ 
tions  of  all  kinds — in  bolstering,  by  heavy 
deposits  of  the  Government  funds,  such  rot¬ 
ten  institutions  as  the  “North  American 
Trust  and  Banking  Company,”  in  the  stock 
of  which  he  was  a  heavy  gambler.  By  his 
own  statement  Hoyt  thus  constantly  held  of 
the  Government  funds,  free  of  interest,  an 
average  of  $350,000,  at  a  time  in  New  York 
when  money  was  demanding  5  per  cent,  per 
month.  The  sum  thus  held  was  shown  to 
be  much  larger,  probably  not  less  than  half 
a  million,  and  “  it  was  understood  ”  and  be¬ 
lieved  that  his  deposits  in  rotten  “banks 
were  made  under  the  sanction  of  the  Se«re- 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  ”  at  a  time  when  W ood- 
bury  was  “borrowing”  for  the  Government 
“  on  Treasury  notes  bearing  interest.” 

The  exact  aggregate  of  Hoyt’s  plunder  is 
not  known.  The  aggregate  of  his  default 
was  not  less  than  $500,000.  His  unlawful 
income — the  aggregate  of  his  pillage  of  im¬ 
porters  and  merchants — cannot  be  exactly 
estimated :  it  was  known  to  be  prodigious  ; 
but  his  annihilation  of  the  commerce  of  the 
country,  and  the  consequent  heavy  loss  to 
the  Government  in  its  revenues,  while  im¬ 
mensely  increasing  the  cost  of  collecting  the 
customs  at  New  York,  can  be  approximated, 
fei  one  year,  in  1840,  as  compared  with  1839, 
the  faliing  off  of  imports  was  $40,232,763, 
involving,  besides  the  heavy  loss  to  the 
traffic  of  the  nation,  a  loss  to  the  Govern- 


ment,  in  its  revenues,  of  $7,651,765.53.  As 
compared  with.  1825,  the  first  year  of  Adams’s 
Administration,  the  falling  off  in  the  aggre¬ 
gate  of  imports  and  exports  in  1840  was 
$2,975,142,  while  the  cost  of  collection  had 
increased  in  a  corresponding  ratio. 

A  SAMPLE  OF  DEMOCRATIC  ADMINISTRATION. 

So  in  all  departments  of  the  Government- 
maladministration  and  corruption  rioted  un¬ 
restrained.  Contractors,  commissioners,  In¬ 
dian  agents,  paymasters,  officers  of  the  army 
and  navy,  and  Governors  of  Territories — all 
defaulted  for  thousands  upon  thousands. 
The  Indians  were  special  objects  of  rapacity. 
Cherokees,  Chickasaws,  Creeks,  and  Choc¬ 
taws,  outraged  and  oppressed  in  a  thousand 
brutal  ways,  and  forced  into  hostilities,  were 
mercilessly  murdered  and  deprived  of  their 
lands.  In  forty  years,  in  Indian  wars,  the 
nation  expended  $500,000,000  ;  in  the  Semi¬ 
nole  war  alone,  in  seven  years,  $50,000,000 
in  gold — an  average  in  gold  of  $7,000,000. 
Thus,  Indian  claims  were  the  fattest  of  rot¬ 
ten  perquisites.  Their  name  was  legion ! 
The  robberies  attending  the  removal  alone 
of  the  Cherokees  and  Choctaws,  under  the 
treaties  of  1835  and  1846,  are  estimated, 
upon  official  data,  at  $7,358,064.60.  In  these 
even  Colonel  Richard  M.  Johnson,  Van  Bu~ 
ren’s  Viee  President,  indulged  the  dominant 
propensities,  and  assessed  $18,000  fees  for 
fraudulent  collections. 

Necessarily,  in  every  branch  of  the  ser¬ 
vice,  the  expenditures  increased  enormous¬ 
ly,  while  the  revenues  decreased.  Under 
Adams,  the  heaviest  annual  current  expend¬ 
itures  amounted  to  $13,296,041.45;  under 
Jackson’s  reform  they  suddenly  swelled  to 
$29,621,807.82  ;  under  Van  Buren’s,  to  $31,- 
793,587.24.  The  aggregate  of  the  current  i 
expenditures  of  Adams’  Administration  was 
$50,501,914.31.  Under  Jackson  the  aggre¬ 
gate  of  his  first  term  was  $56,270,480.62  ;  of 
his  second  term,  $88,275,930.46  ;  total,  $143,- 
380,307.  Under  Van  Buren’s  single  term, 
$112,188,692.16. 

POLK’S  ADMINISTRATION  AND  FRAUDS  ON  THE 

INDIANS. 

Under  Polk  the  Indian  frauds  were  enor¬ 
mous.  These  are  embraced  in  a  settlement 
by  Commissioner  Medill,  and  covered  in  a 
report  by  William  L.  Marcy,  Secretary  of 
War,  dated  May  20,  1848,  to  Congress.  Un¬ 
der  the  treaties  of  1835  and  1846  the  Chero¬ 
kees  were  entitled  to  $5,000,000,  less  $1,000,- 
000,  for  the  purchase  of  lands  to  which  they 
were  to  emigrate,  and  the  creation  of  a  na¬ 
tional  fund  for  the  tribe,  leaving  due  the 
Cherokees  $4,000,000,  which  should  have 
been  paid  them.  Against  that  sum,  at  the 
settlement,  as  per  William  L.  Marcy,  fraudu¬ 
lent  charges,  by  the  agents  and  others,  were 
audited,  amounting  to  $3,815,000,  leaving 
for  the  Indians  only  $184,071.28  of  their 
$4,000,000  under  the  treaties.  Of  course  the 
Indians  demurred.  An  appropriation  was 


subsequently  made  of  $1,256,500.27;  and  the 
agents  were  instructed  to  demand  from  the 
Indians  receipts  in  full  before  the  payment 
of  even  that  sum.  The  Indians  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  submit.  Thus,  in  the  removal  of 
the  Cherokees,  under  the  treaties  of  1835 
and  1846,  as  per  William  L.  Marcy’s  settle¬ 
ment,  the  Indians  were  deliberately  robbed  of 
$2,743,499.27. 

Under  the  same  treaties,  at  the  same  time, 
the  Government  was  mulcted  in  a  like  sum. 
The  amount  paid  by  the  Government  in  the 
transportation  of  the  Indians  was  $2,915,- 

141.58.  An  offer  was  made  to  transport  and 
subsist  the  Indians  at  $40  per  head.  Even 
the  Indians  proposed  to  transport  and  sub¬ 
sist  themselves  at  the  same  rate — $40  per 
head — which  for  13,149  Indians  (the  number 
charged  for)  would  amount  to  $525,960,  show¬ 
ing  a  swindle,  as  compared  with  the  amount 
actually  paid  by  the  Government,  of  $2,389.,- 

181.58.  The  records  of  the  Indian  office 
show  that  the  cop  tractors  charged  for  1,633 
more  than  were  actually  removed,  which,  at 
$40  per  head,  amounted  to  $65,320.  The 
original  contractors  were  compelled  by  the 
Government  agents  to  transfer  their  contracts 
to  second  parties,  and  to  the  original  con¬ 
tractors  were  awarded  as  damages  the  sum 
of  $227,362.52.  The  records  also  show  that 
the  Cherokee  fund  was  defrauded  by  a  citi¬ 
zen  agent  of  $68,145.64,  and  by  two  army 
officers  of  $76,976.54,  making  the  total  fraud 
against  the  Government  $2,827,000.28.  In 
like  manner  the  Choctaws  were  swindled  of 
$1,787,565.05. 

To  recapitulate : 

Aggregate  fraud  against  Gov¬ 
ernment  under  the  treaties  of 

1 835-’ 46 . $2,827,000.28 

Aggregate  fraud  against  Chero¬ 


kees  under  same  treaties .  2,743,499.27 

Aggregate  fraud  against  Choc¬ 
taws . . .  1,787,565.05 


Total . . . *7,358,064.60 


THE  MEXICAN  WAR  AND  DEMOCRATIC  CORRUPTION. 

The  Mexican  war  exacted  an  expenditure 
of  hundreds  of  millions  and  the  lives  of 
25,000  of  our  citizens.  Corruption  in  the 
Government  stalked  unrestrained.  The  Eli 
Moores,  the  Purdys,  the  Morrises,  the  Pat¬ 
rick  Collinses,  the  Beards,  the  Scotts,  the 
Kennerlies,  the  Denbys,  and  theWetmores — 
a  host  of  pillagers — Indian  agents,  sub- Indian 
agents,  contractors,  disbursing  officers  of  the 
army  and  navy,  navy  agents,  pension  agents, 
marshals,  receivers  of  public  moneys,  com¬ 
mercial  agents,  surveyors,  inspectors,  and 
collectors  of  the  customs,  plundered  their 
million. 

Under  Pierce  Washington  “rings”  rejoiced 


*Tliese  facts  and  figures  are  from  official 
statements  and  tables  prepared  at  the  Bureau 
of  Indian  Affairs. 


I 


a? 

* 


t 


in  mammoth  fraud  in  the  building  of  the 
Capitol  wings  and  in  the  extension  of  the 
Treasury  building,  and  were  encouraged  in 
their  pillage  by  Pierce’s  ‘‘outlaws  of  the 
Treasury.”  The  actual  and  proposed  plun¬ 
der  was  immense.  The  aggregate  amount  of 
spoils  proposed  in  the  first  Congress  under 
Pierce  was  estimated  at  three  hundred  mil¬ 
lions  ! — $120,000,000  in  obedience  to  the  de¬ 
cree  of  the  Ostend  conference  for  the  pur¬ 
chase  of  Cuba;  $20,000,000  for  the  Gadsden 
purchase,  and  so  on  in  like  acts — all  for  the 
aggrandizement  of  slavery. 

THE  POSTMASTER  GENERAL  SWINDLES  THE  GOV¬ 
ERNMENT. 

The  maladministration  of  the  Post  Office 
Department  under  Campbell,  Pierce’s  Post¬ 
master  General,  rivaled  that  under  Barry 
and  Kendall.  Even  “the  sale  of  letters  and 
papers  was  made  an  item  of  revenue.” 
“Bank-bills,  checks,  and  insurance  policies 
were  sold  in  piles,”  and  a  Connecticut  mill, 
buying  two  thousand  of  these,  exposed  the 
crime. 

PRECEDENTS  FOR  ROBESON. 

Secretaries  of  the  Navy  anticipated  Mr 
Robeson  in  transactions  now  denounced  as 
crimes  by  the  Democracy.  Hundreds  of 
thousands  of  the  national  funds  were  in¬ 
trusted  to  rotten  banking  institutions  like 
Fitch  &  Co.’s.  But  Judge  Mason,  styled  by  the 
Union — the  Washington  organ  of  Democratic 
reform — as  “the  accomplished  and  excellent 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,”  reformed  even  upon 
that.  Nathaniel  Denby  was  the  agent  of  the 
Navy  Department  at  Marseilles,  France.  Os¬ 
borne  was  a  Richmond  merchant.  They  de¬ 
faulted  for  the  sum  of  $159,433.67.  At  a 
time  when  Denby  had  an  unexpended  balance 
on  hand  of  nearly  $60,000,  with  no  demands 
for  its  use,  Judge  Mason  deposited  with  the 
Richmond  merchant  (Osborne)  $100,000  for 
the  use  of  Denby.  Denby  had  no  use  for  the 
money.  He  even,  from  his  prison  under 
Fillmore,  urged  in  extenuation  of  his  default 
that  he  had  had  no  “advices”  of  this  deposit 
with  Osborne.  But  Osborne  says  : 

“These  moneys  ($100,000)  I  received  as 
[Mr.  Denby’s]  agent,  paying  interest  for 
them,  and  consequently,  as  would  be  in¬ 
ferred  from  this  circumstance,  and  also  by 
express  understanding,  had  the  use  of  the 
funds  until  called  for.  All  these  funds  were 
in  the  hands  of  various  European  and  Ameri¬ 
can  houses;  and  in  consequence  of  their  fail¬ 
ures  my  losses  were  so  great  as  to  involve 
my  whole  estate  in  ruin  and  leave  me  desti¬ 
tute.” 

THE  CONGRESSIONAL  PRINTING  FRAUDS  AND 
OTHER  PARTY  SPOILS. 

Under  Buchanan,  as  under  Jackson  and 
Van  Buren,  the  revenue  and  the  offices  were 
again  the  “spoils”  of  “The  Party.”  Loyalty 
to  the  Administration,  allegiance  to  slavery, 
were  the  conditions  of  a  division.  The  profits 
of  the  Congressional  printing  were  great. 


The  bills  of  the  Printer  immense.  But  the 
profits  of  the  Executive  printing  and  binding 
and  the  printing  of  the  postal  blanks  were 
enormous.  Out  of  these  profits — the  news¬ 
paper  corruption  fund,  disbursed  by  the  no¬ 
torious  Cornelius  Wendell — presses  like  the 
Pennsylvanian ,  the  Philadelphia  Argus ,  the 
Washington  Union ,  &c.,  received  a  sub¬ 
sidy  as  a  condition  of  slavishly  support¬ 
ing  the  Administration.  Papers  like  the 
Cleveland  National  Democrat  were  established 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Government  by 
office-holders  for  like  purposes — the  defense 
of  border  ruffianism,  Lecompton,  and  sec¬ 
tional  strife.  The  navy-yards,  custom-houses, 
and  post  offices  were  degraded  into  corrupt 
party  machines.  Editors  of  servile  sheets, 
rendering  to  Government  no  service,  were 
borne  upon  their  rolls,  drawing  pay — like 
Baker,  of  the  Pennsylvanian ,  and  the  noted 
Theophilus  Fisk,  of  the  Argus ,  at  Philadel¬ 
phia;  William  M.  Browne,  of  the  Journal  of 
Commerce ,  at  New  York;  Harry  Scovel,  of  the 
Free  Press,  at  Detroit,  and  the  Henry  J.  Al- 
vords  in  other  sections — men  like  Cummings, 
at  Philadelphia,  pocketing  pay  in  the  name 
of  subordinates  for  which  no  services  were 
rendered;  like  Clements,  at  the  Philadelphia 
navy-yard,  unable  to  write,  but  useful  as  a 
politician,  appointed  and  drawing  pay  as 
clerks  while  working  as  bricklayers;  like  the 
infamous  Michael  C.  Murphy,  a  foreman  in 
the  New  York  yard,  and  the  principal  in  a 
$35,000  jewelry  robbery,  retained  as  party 
strikers.  Fealty  to  party  covered  all  crimes. 
Swindling  contracts,  like  the  notorious  live- 
oak  contracts  to  Swift,  were  awarded  to  party 
favorites  in  payment  of  party  services.  Thou¬ 
sands  of  dollars  were  regularly  assessed  for 
party  purposes,  even  three  times  in  the  same 
year,  upon  the  Departments  at  Washington, 
upon  the  navy-yards,  custom-houses,  and 
post  offices  throughout  the  country;  even  as¬ 
sessments,  in  the  form  of  contributions,  for 
the  support  of  the  organ,  the  Constitution. 
Woe  to  the  unfortunate  wight  who  rebelled; 
his  independence  was  instantly  rewarded  by 
decapitation.  Office-holders  were  organized 
into  mercenary  corps  for  the  control  of  Na¬ 
tional  and  State  politics;  and  by  wholesale 
frauds  at  elections — by  frauds  upon  the  reg¬ 
istry — by  the  issue  and  distribution  of  fraud¬ 
ulent  naturalization  papers — by  ballot-box 
stuffing  and  frauds  in  counting  votes,  ena¬ 
bled  corrupt  minorities  to  dominate  for  years 
the  intelligent  majorities  of  the  great  States 
of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York.  Defaults 
like  Isaac  V.  Fowler’s,  the  postmaster  at  New 
York,  for  $75,000,  were  but  bagatelles  com¬ 
pared  with  Thompson’s  and  Floyd’s  grander 
system  of  pillage.  The  abstraction  by  Floyd’s 
nephew,  Godard  Bailey,  in  1860,  from  the 
Interior  Department,  under  Jacob  Thompson, 
of  $870,000  of  Indian  trust  bonds,  and  their 
transfer  to  Russell,  Majors  &  Waddell,  upon 
Secretary  Floyd’s  fraudulent  acceptances,  un- 


der  a  contract  of  that  firm  with  the  War  De¬ 
partment,  and  similar  fraudulent  acceptances 
by  Floyd,  as  shown  by  the  records  of  the  War 
Department,  to  the  amount  of  $5,-339,335, 
aggregated  a  fraud  of  $6,137,395,  to  be  borne 
either  by  the  Government  or  the  holder. 

THE  INDIAN  BONDS  THEFT. 

Under  the  numerous  Indian  treaties,  up  to 
1861,  with  the  Cherokees,  Chickasaws,  Choc¬ 
taws,  Creeks,  and  others,  funds  in  large 
amounts  (held  under  the  solemn  pledges  of 
the  nation  in  trust  for  those  tribes)  had 
accumulated  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretaries 
of  War,  Treasury,  and  Interior.  These  were 
invested  by  Secretaries  Woodbury  and 
Thompson  in  nearly  valueless  Southern 
stocks  and  State  bonds.  Even  the  Smith¬ 
sonian  trust  fund  ($538,000)  was  sunk 
with  the  rest.  By  Woodbury  $1,744,166.66 
were  thus  invested,  upon  which  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  has  paid  as  interest  $1,571,708. 
Of  this  fund,  under  Buchanan,  Secretary 
Thompson  invested  in  like  stocks  and  State 
bonds  $1,970,800,  upon  which  the  Govern¬ 
ment  has  paid  as  interest  $1,575,435,  all  in 
violation  of  law,  and  causing  a  total  loss  to 
the  nation  of  $6,862,109.66. 

Hence, under  Buchanan,  under  Democratic 
reform,  the  loss  to  the  Government  by  defaults 
and  fraud  was  $3.81  in  every  $1,000  collected 
and  disbursed;  under  Lincoln,  but  $0.76; 
under  Grant,  only  $0.34.  Under  Buchanan, 
five  times  greater  than  under  Lincoln.  Under 
Buchanan,  over  eleven  times  greater  than 
under  Grant. 


York,  State  of  New  “That  for  such  ser- 
York, whether  derived  vices  the  defendant, 
from  any  kind  of  prop-  Tilden,  made  a  charge 
erty,  rents,  interests,  of  $10,000  against  said 
dividends,  salary,  or  second  mortgage  bond- 
from  any  profession,  holders,  and  the  said 
trade,  employment,  or  charge  was  paid  by  or 
vocation,  or  from  any  on  behalf  of  said  second 
other  source  whatev-  mortgage  bondholders 
er,  from  1st  day  of  Jan-  on  the  17th  of  October, 
uary  to  31st  day  of  1S62;  *  *  *  that  the  de- 
December,  1862,  both  fendant,  Tilden,  for  a 
days  inclusive,  and  part  of  his  services 
subject  to  an  income  aforesaid,  also  made  a 
tax  under  the  excise  charge  of  the  like  sum 
law  of  the  United  of  $10,000  on  account  of 
States.  Income  from  professional  services 
ail  sources,  $7,118.”  rendered  to  the  first 

mortgage  bondholders 
and  the  receivers, 
which  was  paid  to  him 
by  the  said  Azariah  C. 
Flagg ;  *  *  *  and  which 
payment  appears  un¬ 
der  date  of  November 
7,  1862,  in  a  statement 
annexed  to  the  first  re¬ 
port  aforesaid,  as  hav- 
"  ing  been  receipted  for 

by  the  said  Tilden,  ‘on 
account  of  professional 
services.’  ” 

Is  Mr.  Tilden  a  willful  perjurer  ?  And  if 
so,  is  he  a  fit  person  to  be  President  of  the 
United  States  ? 

DARE  THE  NATION  TRUST  SUCH  A  PARTY  ? 

Dare  the  nation  again  trust  such  a  party  f 
In  what  have  Republicans  forfeited  the  con¬ 
fidence  of  the  Republic  ?  Shall  Belknap’s 
single  crime — his  sale  of  a  post-tradership  to 
the  Democrat  Marsh  —  the  only  offense  of 
which  it  has  been  convicted — an  accident, 
i  not  the  rule  of  its  administration — blot  out 


Such  is  a  brief  history  of  Democratic  re¬ 
form — such  the  character  of  its  public  men 
— not  of  one  period  only,  but  of  its  every 
period,  from  its  origin  under  Jefferson  to  its 
close,  in  1861,  under  Buchanan.  Malad¬ 
ministration,  malfeasance,  spoliation,  corrup¬ 
tion,  and  fraud — every  vile  administrative 
crime — dominated  amid  executive  usurpa¬ 
tion  and  military  tyranny,  supported  by¬ 
laws  outraging  every  human  right. 

THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  TO-DAY. 

Turning  from  the  past  terrible  record  of 
the  party,  the  question  naturally  arises : 
“Has  the  Democracy,  as  a  party,  improved  ?” 
“  Is  it  the  author  of  a  single  good  act  in  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century?”  This  question 
has  been  asked  before,  but  never  answered. 
Take,  for  example,  the  nomination  of  Samuel 
J.  Tilden  for  the  Presidency :  It  is  fair  to 
conclude  that  as  is  the  man  of  their  choice 
so  is  the  party  he  represents.  One  illustra-' 
tion  of  his  character  for  veracity  is  sufficient. 

On  December  26,1863,  In  bis  answer  to  the 
Mr.  Tilden  swore  to  a  complaint  in  the  Cir- 
return,  under  oath,  in  cuit  Court  of  the  TJni- 
whichnesaid:  ted  States  in  the  suit 

“I  hereby  certify  of  the  St.  Louis,  Alton 
that  the  following  is  and  Terre  Haute  Itail- 
a  true  and  faithful  road  Company  against 
statement  of  the  gains,  himself  and  others, 
profits,  or  income  of  which  answer  was  filed 
Samuel  J.  Tilden,  of  recently,  Mr.  Tilden 
the  city  of  New  York,  swore  under  oath  as 
and  county  of  New  follows: 


!  its  record  of  magnificent  achievements — its 
!  triumphant  restoration  of  the  Union  against 
the  murderous  efforts  of  the  Democracy  to 
destroy  it ;  its  steady  development  and  care- 
|  ful  husbandry  of  the  grand  resources  of  the 
Nation,  increasing  immensely  the  wealth 
and  happiness  and  comforts  of  the  people  ? 
Even  admitting  Belknap’s  Republicanism — a 
mooted  question — into  what  lilliputian  pro¬ 
portions,  in  character  and  degree,  does  his 
|  single  crime  dwarf  before  the  greater  and 
more  heinous  villainy  of  the  Democracy — 
before  those  of  its  highest  officials — its  truest 
representatives  in  office  ;  its  Richard  M. 
Johnsons,  Vice  President  of  the  United*States; 
its  Martin  Van  Bnrens  and  John  Forsyths, 
Secretaries  of  State ;  its  Levi  Woodburys, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  its  Lewis  Casses 
and  John  B.  Floyds,  Secretaries  of  War  ;  its 
John  Y.  Masons,  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ;  its 
Jacob  Thompson-',  Secretary  of  the  Interior; 
its  William  T.  Barrys  and  Amos  Kendalls, 
Postmasters  General ;  its  Hoyts,  Harrises, 

[  and  Boyds,  whose  maladministration  and  cor¬ 
ruption  stand  without  a  parallel  in  history  ? 
A  single  crime — a  comparatively  petty  of¬ 
fense,  by  which  the  nation  loses  nothing, 
not  a  penny — against  a  multitude  by  which 
1  the  nation  has  been  pillaged  of  hundreds  of 
millions — aye, through  the  rebellion, of  thou- 
!  sands  of  millions  ! 


